4 ms·
Irrespective of the justification - and I outlined a good one in my edit - it's definition doesn't change. Also it would be way simpler to deduct a $1 fee from
by lorddoig 12y ago
Irrespective of the justification - and I outlined a good one in my edit - it's definition doesn't change.
Also it would be way simpler to deduct a $1 fee from the chosen amount if a new card is needed, no?
- philh 12y agoI don't think economists are the people who usually work with the definition of theft. And I don't think a lawyer would equate this with theft.
- rayiner 12y agoThe justification undermines the whole premise of the article, which is that the amounts are set to leave a large unusable balance on each card.
- thedufer 12y agoOh yes, it would go over much better to promise a $10 card and then give only $9. That's _definitely_ theft. > if a new card is needed This is the "new card" screen. That question has already been answered if you get here. The "topping up" screen advertises $10/$20/$40 instead of $9/$19/$39 (making the intent perfectly clear).